User talk:Daniel J. Leivick

Dodge Avenger

Daniel, I am struggling to understand why you keep deleting the text where I say that two features are "unique" when you think they are "unusual". I spend every work day reviewing cars and writing articles about them for online publications and magazines and I can tell you from experience that those features are unique features in the Dodge Avenger sedan, especially the Chill Zone, since it's a registered trademark of Dodge and is not available in any other mid-sized sedans. Also if they are not unique to the Avenger and are available in other vehicles, then what makes them unusual? Wouldn't that mean it's just another "me too" feature and therefor not unusual? Not only that, I don't see how it's fair that you ask me to cite why they are unique when you are not citing what makes them unusual. I am sure you will agree that this is a fairly silly argument and just the product of two different opinions, but I would politely ask that you leave my original text in the article.

Just though of this. Can we reach a compromise and say that two "uncommon" features available are....etc. Let me know what you think. --Redroller 18:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in the second edit summary that the problem was with the phrase "most unique." There are not grades of uniqueness, either it is or it isn't unique. People say "most unique" all the time, but it really is improper grammer like "on accident" or other common grammer errors. In anycase "uncommon" would be a better way to put it as we can't really say they are unique unless there is a good third party source. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, you need to get a grip here buddy. You can write whatever it is that you want to write, apparently differing opinions mean nothing to you. I am not going to sit here and argue the definition of adjectives. I was not saying they were "somewhat unique", I was saying that of all of the features on the new Avenger those two features are the most unique of the bunch. Not somewhat unique. Not kind of unique. I think you need to think a little more about what you are writing before criticizing other people and throwing around arbitrary rules for editing text while thinking those rules don't apply to you. To mirror your sentence......we can't really say they are unusual unless there is a good thirty party source. Not to mention you could say the same thing about saying they are "uncommon". So why is that more acceptable to you? Change the text to whatever pleases you, I'm done wasting my time.--Redroller 22:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be misunderstanding me. There is no need for hostility. I am not talking about arbitrary rules or differences in opinion, I am talking about grammer rules. Unique means singular unparralled, saying "most unique" is equivilent to saying "most best." As for the sourcing issue, more oustanding claims like being unique require better sourcing, ideally all claims would be sourced, but in my experience on Wikipedia it is easier to get away with saying uncommon or unusual without a source. Really my only problem was with the "most unique" phrase rather then sourcing. I hope we can get along in the future. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! Gscshoyru 11:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milestone home runs

You may have an opinion on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Milestone home runs by Barry Bonds.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Dub (wheel)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dub (wheel), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dub (wheel). Thank you. jonny-mt(t)(c) 05:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick and god damn tired of everything.

don't argue with me daniel. you know i'm sick of you bashing kid chris, you bash him all the time. when you edit an article, don't just undo it add to it. there is still some flaws with the wherever you are page.--Savetheeggs 23:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you are talking about, all I did was fix the clean up template so that it worked. I don't even know who kid chris is. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes to the RX-7 page are valid as there are a great number of RX-7's that now contain LS1 engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.111.70 (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]